Make Flambeau Spanish again...
Iberian. Spain is far into the future. It is still far into the future in the XIII century.
I agree on the location. And make him go out on a large pyrotechnics show. It was cooler. period. If the current Flambeau Primus is a sissy that likes chivalry, all good et al and it is his issue, but the founder was there to be higher than most men and way more blunt. Perfect founders are more boring. This is why I liked Trianoma being not-so-good-happy-hippie anymore in Ancient Magic.
The change of century would be an idea. I would like it. However, dunno if a "viking age" Ars Magica would be as well received since knights are a stapple of fantasy roleplaying. You can still have the franks doing their stuff, but it is not the same.
Not just you. I've started tinkering with a saga set in the late 9th century recently.
It's a very different Order - and a very different Europe!
I think that there is a tendency in populations to make those who came before more perfect, especially when they are presented as a unified group that created something. I think I can explain this by analogy.
The US is a good example of treating Founders as more perfect than they were. Many talk of the Founding Fathers with almost religious reverence. And they treat them as a monolithic force that created the United States, because they did, but not in the way that many seem to understand. Some "scholars" have been caught making certain Founders (Jefferson) fit better within that monolithic force. What people tend to forget is that these men fought for the things they believed in and had huge disagreements (Aaron Burr-Alexander Hamilton duel, anyone?). The Founding Fathers were far from a monolithic force, and history has a tendency to knock off the sharp edges, and when viewed through the current lens, it's easy for many to believe that the Founders all believed the same thing to create the US, when in fact they fought for the things that the believed in and compromised on the things they could come to be unimportant.
One of the great things about Ars is that the history is presented in broad brushstrokes by writers who understand good stories and understand history. I don't think that the founders of the Order are presented as perfect, I think it is understood that those within the Order think of them as being perfect, or at least more perfect than they were. Another example of the human condition.
Smackdown recieved and appreciated. 
Hispanic then. Asturian or even Catalonian.
And Andalusian.
I like to think of the descriptions of the Founders and of the early Order in published materials as stories told in the same way Americans tell stories about the Founding Fathers. This is the version that is commonly believed to be true among Magi, but may or may not actually be strictly accurate. It's not as if "the truth" will ever come into play unless someone manages to call up the ghost of Bonisagus or do something else like that. And if that is possible, it's better to keep the true situation a mystery until then.
-1 
While I agree that "Int +3 (add one word description here)" is a bit (or a lot) bland (my HR is to re-introduce the idea that the Characteristics can have "Specializations" worth a +1 in the area of specialization; I add that you must have as many "special weaknesses" (like an anti-specialization) across your 8 Characteristics, as you have "specializations" (and a given Characteristic CAN but doesn't HAVE TO have both a Specialization and a Special Weakness)), I'd rather keep even the bland than lose the core mechanic. The basic "Stat+Skill" mechanic is well- and widely-understood by virtually all RPG'ers (which is a substantive asset!) but even more importantly it works well for the purpose. If we're going to have a diced mechanic, then having this at the core is, really, about as good as anything, and better than most. I can see going over to a dice-pool if you like to bell-curve your results (2d6 seems to be relatively well-tested and well-regarded), but I'd still preserve the core notion.
Maybe we could compromise: make all the Characteristics OPTIONAL. :mrgreen:
I mean really... it's that way already, since all default to "0" unless modified. If called upon for an "INT roll" and your character has nothing about "INT" on the sheet, you roll without benefit or penalty. If you've invested points, you maybe/probably/certainly get some sort of bonus, depending on the specifics of the roll and of your points-invested ... 
Now this... THIS... is nothing short of brilliant ! In one fell swoop, Timothy has re-engineered the Ars Magica game to closely/canonically support a dozen or so different play/campaign styles. The only modification I'd make to this notion is that there should probably be explicit support for the core ArM / medieval-story concept that "the further from home, the more fantastical" -- thus each Tribunal book is about 2/3 oriented to play IN that tribunal, but about 2/3 of the remainder is kicked up a notch, for Saga's who occasionally visit and find the area to be "more fantastical" than their home region, and the remaining 10% (OK, 1/9... really, folks, don't nit-pick so much!) aimed at once-or-twice-per-Saga visitors, who find the area borders on over-the-top in mythic/fantastic elements. Obviously, each Troupe/Saga would be free to incorporate as much or as little of the "enhanced" fantasy-bits, even if they reside in the heart of the region. Different Tribunal-books would, presumably, each define their own "baseline" of how Mythic the local Mythic Europe is (and how extreme it gets when used as a Tourguide by visiting Saga's).
Let me dwarvishly stand on Mr. Ferguson's giant shoulders, and suggest that the Realm-Books could similarly be re-envisioned to support not only that Realm within a "standard" ArM-game, but campaigns that take each Realm as a core playing environment; and from there we're just a hop skip and a jump from things like an Atlantis sourcebook, etc...
Inspiring vision, Timothy!
Hmmm. I could definitely see re-drawing Tribunal borders! But I don't think a Normandy/Stonehenge merger is profitable. The conflict between the two thrones is too useful, plot-wise, when there's a Hermetic border there too, but members of the Order are supposed to avoid supporting either side... Also, the Schism is pleasingly close to William's invasion, so the possibility that the two are somehow related is a nice one, and a Tribunal boundary there just adds storyhooks galore. 
(FWIW, I was really disappointed when my the Saga (based on a covenant on the isle of Sark) folded early (due to RL interpersonal politics - ugh). The political boundary puts Sark with the English throne, but the apostolic boundary puts it within a French See. I planned to have covenants from both the Isles and the Continent begin leaning on the PC covenant to join THEIR tribunal, come the Grand Tribunal... ) .
+1, although I'm not sure "centered on... the Hebrides" is quite how I'd arrange it...
How about a "Carolingian Tribunal" -- one vast Tribunal more-or-less corresponding to the Empire of Charlemagne? Again, I point to the timeframes of the respective Hermetic & Mundane politics...
+1. The whole "one magus/one vote" & the Order's political structure seems very Athenian to me. Put one of the Founders centered in Athens (and that Domus Magnus) -- they insisted the Order be set up that way, rather than the (more obvious at the time) Feudal system (which was the example that was everywhere they looked, when forming the Order!). Given the reverence to Bonisagus (King), the fear of Flambeau and of Guorna's filii (dukes/warlords), etc... the Feudal structure really seems much more likely!
"Aspected" or "flavored" or "colored" (and probably other terms I'm not recalling offhand) aura's (and vis). I understand dropping it to simplify the system and reduce word-count, but I agree -- a real loss. I've already HR'ed these back in. Most Aura's give low-to-middling "generic" bonuses, but rather more-substantive specific bonuses.
Yes, I think they are Virtues pretendingto be something else. I'd be happy to have them as optional...
Hmmm. I could definitely see re-drawing Tribunal borders! But I don't think a Normandy/Stonehenge merger is profitable. The conflict between the two thrones is too useful, plot-wise, when there's a Hermetic border there too, but members of the Order are supposed to avoid supporting either side... Also, the Schism is pleasingly close to William's invasion, so the possibility that the two are somehow related is a nice one, and a Tribunal boundary there just adds storyhooks galore.
(FWIW, I was really disappointed when my the Saga (based on a covenant on the isle of Sark) folded early (due to RL interpersonal politics - ugh). The political boundary puts Sark with the English throne, but the apostolic boundary puts it within a French See. I planned to have covenants from both the Isles and the Continent begin leaning on the PC covenant to join THEIR tribunal, come the Grand Tribunal... ) .
[/quote]
Minor odd historical point: in 1220, Sark is not part of the English Throne. It's the remains of the Duchy of Normandy, and the King rules there as Duke of Normandy.
In modern times, it's in the Bailliwick of Guernsey, and still is not part of the United Kingdom. The Crown in right of the republic of the Baliwick of Guernsey just happens to sit on the same head as, say, the Crown of Australia, but that doesn't make it part of Australia. The difference is the Queen has asked her UK government to look after her priveledges there, to some extent, and she's agreed to never do that again in Australia (under the Australia Act, officially, but effectively, well before that.)
Yes, I think they are Virtues pretendingto be something else. I'd be happy to have them as optional...
Hmmm. I could definitely see re-drawing Tribunal borders! But I don't think a Normandy/Stonehenge merger is profitable. The conflict between the two thrones is too useful, plot-wise, when there's a Hermetic border there too, but members of the Order are supposed to avoid supporting either side... Also, the Schism is pleasingly close to William's invasion, so the possibility that the two are somehow related is a nice one, and a Tribunal boundary there just adds storyhooks galore.
(FWIW, I was really disappointed when my the Saga (based on a covenant on the isle of Sark) folded early (due to RL interpersonal politics - ugh). The political boundary puts Sark with the English throne, but the apostolic boundary puts it within a French See. I planned to have covenants from both the Isles and the Continent begin leaning on the PC covenant to join THEIR tribunal, come the Grand Tribunal... ) .
[/quote]
Minor odd historical point: in 1220, Sark is not part of the English Throne. It's the remains of the Duchy of Normandy, and the King rules there as Duke of Normandy.
In modern times, it's in the Bailliwick of Guernsey, and still is not part of the United Kingdom. The Crown in right of the republic of the Baliwick of Guernsey just happens to sit on the same head as, say, the Crown of Australia, but that doesn't make it part of Australia. The difference is the Queen has asked her UK government to look after her priveledges there, to some extent, and she's agreed to never do that again in Australia (under the Australia Act, officially, but effectively, well before that.)
Very true. I recently tried to make a functional Holy mage that fit historical religious movements. Cumbersome is understating it.
A thing that bothers me a bit in the combat system is that when it comes to do damage, dexterity is so good as strength. Even better, for it gives you a better chance to hit, and better damages.
Ex: A dex +3, str +1, Sing weap 5 grog rolls a 8 , making a total attack of 16. Lets say the target gets a total of 12. So, attack advantage + str = weapon damage + 5.
Ex 2: Same thing as before, but dex +1 and str +3, rolls 8, total attack of 14.... = weapon damage + 5.
I was thinking seriously in changing it to: (attack advantage)/2 + str for the bonus damage for an attack. So, strong guys usually hit less, but do a bit more damage than dextrous ones.
What you think guys?
Why is this a problem?
You can always double the bonus of Str if you prefer that. Hits will be even more deadly in this case.
Xavi
I've tried to run ARS MAGICA a couple of times and failed both times. I still buy and love the material being published but I do feel that the line as it currently exists doesn't make it easy for the GM who is coming to it without a previous history in earlier editions. You can see some of the things I found hard in the series of 'Stupid Question' threads I started at the time. I think you need to show the text to more 'virgin' Storytellers before publication and not limit the playtest of Sixth Edition to those whose first reaction is going to be: 'What did they change this time?'
One thing that I would like to be there in the game is a sense of a unified mechanic and a unified reality behind magic in all its manifestations. Given the numerous variants it would be good if I could tell (or if I thought you had any clear conception yourself) what magic is like in a 'raw' state and what the various schools of magic do to make it more manageable. You gave Hermetic Magic a set of core theoretical assumptions but never did the same for any of the others. This is odd, now that I come to think of it. It would be good if every description of a new form of magic were to be in a similar format and if I could easily perceive what each one did that was unique to it. And yes, a clear idea of what difference being GIfted makes would be good especially for those forms that can do both.
I would like very much to have a better understanding of how combat and magic interact, especially the timing and damage rules. I have never used Group Combat because I have never been sure I grasped individual combat well enough to go on from there.
I would like some rules, somewhere that allow me to generate easily the books that are likely to be found in the library of a particular covenant, given its age. This is what killed covenant design for me. I tried to unload it onto the players ("Look, you have x points that belong to you to make the library have books in that your character wants...") but not only did most of them not want that their next question was: "What's in the library of the covenant in the next county we've just made contact with?"
One thing I would kill for is a book (whether for a revised edition the rules or not) which gave me the chance to play the early days of the Order. The writing of the Oath and the building up of the Code and the potential to create a whole new history (and an Oath and Code that weren't suicide pacts) would be glorious! Failing that a timeline of the Order that agrees when the various legal developments and new bits of the Art came into play would be grand.
And yes, the idea of a specific default 'theme' for each Tribunal is a worthy one if you can get it to work.
As a general idea, ignore ALL mechanics outside the core rulebook until you have your campaign up and running. The core book is amazing, and has all the necessary materials to run a whole saga (it only fails slightly in the Realms chapter IMO). The supplements are much less elegant when it comes to integrate mechanics. Take ideas from there, but it is better if you ignore them as official stuff to run the campaign.
Xavi
Well, good advice but I didn't find the mechanics in the core rulebook that translucent as the aforementioned set of 'Stupid Questions' reveals.
No, that happens.
Basic system is quite standard for magic and abilities (plus bonuses), but when you enter into the wonderful world of lab work and the like it is more complicated, yup. What I was suggesting (I guess) was trying to centre all your efforts in the mechanics in the core book, leaving the mechanics in the supplements apart since as you say you already have your hands full with the basic book.
Hope I am more clear now 
And yes, I agree with your "ArM6 for dummies" suggestion. I would appreciate it, adn we have been playing since 3rd.
Tellus:
Well, what feels wrong for me is that a very dextrous guy have better chance to hit AND better damage (thanks the attack advantage) when a very strong guy have better damage only (in equal rate to the better dex). Like I posted before, after comparing a sucessful attack of the dextrous against the strong, with the same numbers rolled on dice, they do the same damage. 
Of course, we can think that strong chars can use more damaging weapons, like warhammers, but with equal rolls, weapons and skill, a dextrous character can do the same damage that a strong char can, with a better chance to hit.
Xavi:
Heh. Just after posting, I wondered the same thing man. It's simple, makes strong chars make a bit more damage than dextrous ones (even with a worse hit chance) and makes combat more lethal. I think I will stick with it. 8)
a) It's an abstract system, so of course it is going to have some realism problems somewhere. It is a matter of whether addressing those problems is worthwhile in terms of more complicated game mechanics.
b) I don't think that you are making the right comparison. A Strong Character does more damage than a Weak one. A Dexterous Character hits more often than an Clumsy one. A Strong Dexterous Character does more damage than a Weak Dexterous one. Then there is a break-point where a Weaker but Dexterous character is as effective overall as a Clumsy but Strong one. I can't see a problem with this.